ever since rising from the ocean 400 million years ago, and since the fish turned into a frog, there have been "unused DNA" carried in vertebrate species

they are turned on and turned of by random mutation but the DNA is never "loss"

meanwile, insects lost ALL OF THEIR extra DNA 400 million years ago, probably due to some population bottleneck which favored smaller DNA molecules

if you compare human DNA + mice with that of several insects species you will note how insects are missing pieces of DNA in many places while human + mouse align perfectly with each other having of course some 20% of DNA different between a human and a mouse but nevertheless all the DNA is still there

in insects, nothing, huge gaps, less DNA than either human or mouse

HOWEVER the exceptions like moths, which have larger DNA than humans, are just twisted and horribly mutated ancient wasps. they have copied their COX3 gene about 1000 times and its one megabyte long, but this is not the norm in insect world, beetles dont have it like that

having one big COX3 gene doesnt mean you are having all the DNA that is missing between a human and a insect

ok but the final verdict is: a frog still has the potential of turning into a mammal if a whole lot of its unused extra DNA is turned on

a human embryo still has gill slits evolved from fish, these disappear within a few weeks and turn into ears and whatnot (this is not an example of extra DNAthough)

>>16689587 (OP)
Does anybody ever actually reply to these biologically illiterate threads or do you just talk to yourself?

>>16689616
I cant speak advanced English sorry. And no, nobody replies because this whole board is shit.

Also you dont know a shit about genetics.

Are there even one German biologist here? Insect researcher would be nice but has to be a geneticist.

>>16689619
>nobody replies because this whole board is shit
You should simply improve your language skills. I am a foreigner as well and your text formatting is just off-putting to read. You can type into a text area field without hitting ENTER after every sentence. It is called paragraphing. Never hit ENTER before you wrote 5-6 full sentences please. Else you bear the mark of the GPT or Redditor.

Okay? And no coomer images, people assume you are just horny and not even into science. This image >>16689592 should have been in the OP. You are getting tons of clicks by mere porn consumers that just save the image and close. Have your text spell checked and corrected by Bing's AI and post it without so many fucking line breaks. I always write without AI, but you might need it. Sorry.

>>16689627
>You can type into a text area field without hitting ENTER after every sentence. It is called paragraphing. Never hit ENTER before you wrote 5-6 full sentences please. Else you bear the mark of the GPT or Redditor.

It's mainly the fact that when on desktop if you don't expand the text box due to textwrapping it looks like it is multiple lines of text.

>>16689627

>And no coomer images

Disregard that command.

>>16689587 (OP)
>the final verdict is: a frog still has the potential of turning into a mammal if a whole lot of its unused extra DNA is turned on
No it doesn't? It might have a lot of unused DNA that could code for its ancestors' traits, but it wouldn't include mammal traits like hair or milk production since those evolved later after frogs did

>>16689587 (OP)
There's no such thing as evolution you fucking retard. Looking at similarity in genetic code and concluding that one is an ancestor of another is the most retarded fallacious shit ever. Biologists are so stupid. I hope you learn about survival of the fittest first-hand.

>>16690337
Evolution can be and has been easily demonstrated in experiments. All it takes is short-lived organisms such as fruit flies

>>16690419
>fly changes over generations
>therefore 400 million years ago...

>>16690426
You said "there's no such thing as evolution". Broad blanket incorrect assertion which remains incorrect. You didn't specify macro or micro or how only certain time periods count or anything else.

>>16690337
Evolution is directly observed you fucking idiot. Creationism is false and Jesus didn't rise from the dead
>>16690426
Yes, that's correct. Accumulated mutations lead to changes in phenotype over time, including fish to amphibians etc

>>16690450
Evolution is directly observed like a fish turning into a frog 400 million years ago? If you believe that I have some snake oil to sell you retard

>>16690455
No one claims fish directly turned into frogs, and the earliest known frog fossils are from about 250 mya, not 400.
There would have been a lot of other things in between a fish and a frog, and we even have living examples of some of them

>>16690455
Evolution is the change in allele frequency of a population over time. This is directly observed and there can not exist a limitation genetically or mathematically
Evolution is not your conceptualization of a fish metamorphosizing into a frog.

>>16690464
>>16690462
>arguing about words
You know what the fuck I mean, autistic freaks
Also OP:
>ever since rising from the ocean 400 million years ago, and since the fish turned into a frog

>>16690469
The only autistic thing here is how you keep deflecting and shifting goalposts.
If even one type of evolution is real, then this statement >>16690337 is a false one. That's it. You should have phrased things differently there if you wanted to avoid this fate

>>16690481
I made the statement based on what is given in the OP. i dont care you pull out the tired old allele frequency shit bit or your glasses pushing. Man from Beast, frog from fish. there's no way we can verify what happened 400 million years ago since your theories are based on unjustified assumptions that shit like half-lifes, laws of physics were the same 400 million years ago. Even making the assumption that there was a universe 400 million years ago is unjustified
please an hero or shutup and go back to the other site.

>>16690177
>but it wouldn't include mammal traits like hair or milk production since those evolved later after frogs did

these mammal features are modified fish genes which some fish use for a different purpose

birds do have them as silenced genes

>>16690419
Please, show me someone """evolving""" a fruit fly into a zimbledorf. Not gonna happen. No matter how much you try it will still be a fruit fly.

>>16690419
>>16690796

butterflies are different species, comparable to differences between different monkeys

human and chimp? theres some difference here

also similarly tortoiseshell butterfly and mourning cloak butterfly are a bit different, humans only notice they have different colors but in truth there are even more deep differences there

how's it possible there are butterflies?

first there was waterflies, so called caddishflyes, it looks like an ancient moth

within 60 million years it evolved from watery insect into night time moths and those night butterflies evolved into day butter flies later

the moth, abandoning aquatic larva, was the first step in becoming actual butterflies

however caddishfly did not disappear they live even today altough their progeny, the butterflies, are around as well and even more numerous than caddisfly itself ever was (the day butterflies have a lot more divergent species with huge number of species)

https://youtu.be/Fy--Zc69HB4?si=OXH4KMCx15D4ue0b

You will REALLY like Dr.Levin's work

Basically he says, cells are all the same but there is an electric interface that determines what a cell becomes

>>16689587 (OP)
The one issue with this perspective is that junk DNA is not.
No such thing.

>>16689627
Pictures of dead people in fancy clothes with an edgy quote in the middle isn't any more 'scientific' than OP's pic.

>>16689587 (OP)
>twisted and horribly mutated
Don't talk shit about moths.

>>16690337
There are clearly some forms of life that are more similar/distant when compared to other particular lifeforms.
This isn't even a controversial statement, as it's just an objective fact.
But I do think there's a bit of 'funny business' in regards to how advanced their... let's say 'chemistry', seems to be.

I can accept that if you find a particular chemical that is only found in X, Y, and Z flowers, then it's reasonable to think that they might share some genetics through common ancestry.
I don't have a problem with looking at the physical attributes of some organisms, and trying to arrange them through overlapping categories with one another in an attempt to map 'genetics/common-ancestry'.
The claim that certain 'genes' in an organism can be in/activated to produce previously unexpressed traits in that organism seems to also be visibly 'true', as we can clearly see the results manifesting in the steroids/hormones using community.

But I'm not sure I quite buy all of the grand claims of how a few drops of body fluids such as blood/spit/semen/etc, a flake of skin cells or a strand of hair; just one of those can somehow provide a complete accurate genetic profile down to a unique, individualized level of precision, out of billions of people. For hair tests, I'd say it's more likely to provide some basic information about a few generalized phenotypes- it can probably give you some clues into the race of the individual, but most of the 'identifiable information' likely comes from knowing what kind of shampoo the person uses- which may be helpful when narrowing down a small pool of people who each use different shampoos- but I'm not convinced that strand of hair contains the information to make a 100% complete genetic map. Same deal with other DNA testing methods, I think a saliva test will probably tell you more about the meals they've recently eaten, compared to the little amount of 'unique genetic information' that can be gleaned from a bit of spit.

>>16689587 (OP)
So what you're saying is that women who let their dogs fuck them is ok? Also apparently humans are the same as moths. Kek

>>16690530
illiterate nigger.

>>16691638
>I think a saliva test will probably tell you more about the meals they've recently eaten, compared to the little amount of 'unique genetic information' that can be gleaned from a bit of spit.

nonsensical gibberish.

god i wish i were born a woman

>>16690780
The modifications to make those ancestral genes into genes for milk production, etc occurred after the split between birds and mammals. So no birds do not have dormant genes to produce milk production as in mammals

>>16691587
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamproptera_meges
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzgIqdEOeRc